California’s protection & advocacy system
Toll-Free (800) 776-5746

Report on Inspection of the Santa
Barbara County Jail (Conducted on
April 2, 2015)
February 23, 2016, Pub. #7028.01
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Disability Rights California (DRC) is the state and federally
designated protection and advocacy agency charged with protecting the
rights of people with disabilities in California. DRC has the authority to
inspect and monitor conditions in any facility that holds people with
disabilities. Pursuant to this authority, DRC is conducting inspections of
conditions in six county correctional facilities in 2015. One of these
facilities is the Santa Barbara County Jail (“Jail”). On April 2, 2015, three
DRC attorneys and our authorized agent Kelly Knapp of the Prison Law
Office, inspected the Jail. We appreciate that Sheriff Bill Brown met with
us personally and that Sheriff Department staff was helpful and
cooperative during our inspection.
We observed positive practices and programs during our
inspection. Sheriff Brown is forward-looking, recognizes the physical
limitations in the current jail facility, and has obtained funding and
approval for construction of new jail in North County. The Department
emphasizes the Sheriff’s Treatment and Re-entry (STAR) Program for
prisoners.
However, we also found evidence of the following violations of the
rights of prisoners with disabilities:
(a) Undue and excessive isolation and solitary confinement;
(b) Inadequate mental health care; and
(c) Denial of rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Page 2 of 26
Pursuant to our authority under 42 U.S.C. §10805(a)(1) and
29 U.S.C. § 794(f)(3) and as a result of this initial inspection, we find
there is probable cause to conclude that prisoners with disabilities are
subjected to neglect in the Santa Barbara County Jail.1 We will continue
to work with you regarding these findings and the next steps in our
investigation.

Background
The Santa Barbara County Jail houses pretrial detainees as well
as sentenced inmates, and both male and female offenders. The Main
Jail facility has 815 beds and a rated capacity of 627 prisoners.2 The
adjacent Medium Security Facility has 285 beds and a rated capacity of
160 prisoners.
The Jail has a long history of overcrowding, with multiple court
orders intended to set population caps. The Sheriff’s Department has
added to the Main Jail in an effort to keep up with overcrowding.
According to the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury, “[t]he central part of
the Main Jail opened in 1971 with additions in 1988, 1992, and 1999,
with a current bed capacity of 618. In 2006 an adjacent honor farm was
reconfigured as a medium security facility to provide an additional 161
beds.”3 Recently, two conference rooms in the basement of the Main
Jail were converted to dorms with 120 beds.4

Under DRC’s authorizing statute, 42 U.S.C.§ 10802(5), “[t]he term ‘neglect’ means a negligent
act or omission by any individual responsible for providing services in a facility rendering care
or treatment which caused or may have caused injury or death to an individual with mental
illness or which placed an individual with mental illness at risk of injury or death, and includes
an act or omission such as the failure to establish or carry out an appropriate individual program
plan or treatment plan for an individual with mental illness, the failure to provide adequate
nutrition, clothing, or health care to an individual with mental illness, or the failure to provide a
safe environment for an individual with mental illness, including the failure to maintain adequate
numbers of appropriately trained staff.” “Return to Main Document”
1

2

California Board of State and Community Corrections (“BSCC”), Biennial Inspection Report of the
Santa Barbara Jail, January 8, 2015, Attachment # 11. “Return to Main Document”
3

Report of the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury, 2010-2011, page 1, available from
http://www.sbcgj.org/2010/JailOvercrowding.pdf. “Return to Main Document”
4

Report of the Santa Barbara Grand Jury Report, 2014-2015, page 2, available from
http://www.sbcgj.org/2015/Detention_Facilities_020615.pdf. “Return to Main Document”

Page 3 of 26
In response to chronic jail overcrowding, Sheriff Bill Brown
convened a Blue Ribbon Commission of experts and local leaders,
which issued a report and recommendations in 2008. 5 The Commission
recommended that the County build a new 300 bed jail facility and
develop a program of community corrections as an alternative to housing
prisoners in the jail.
Today, the Department has funding and approval for an even
larger, 600 bed correctional facility in Santa Maria, to be completed in
2018. The new facility will be a two-tier modular design with a “state of
the art” medical clinic. After the new North Jail opens, the Department
still plans to operate parts of the Main Jail but with a reduced census of
600 prisoners. The Department will close the medium security facility
adjacent to the Main Jail.
One important recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Commission
was to reduce the jail population by developing more pre-trial
alternatives. Blue Ribbon Report, pps. 21-23. At that time, pre-trial
detainees made up 70% of the jail population. Blue Ribbon Report, p.
15. Since then, pre-trial detainees have not decreased and to the
contrary, have increased to make up 73% of the jail population.6 This is
significantly above the average in other counties, which is 62%.7 Some
counties have been successful in affirmatively reducing their pre-trial
population. For example, Sonoma County worked with consultants to
reduce pre-trial detainees to 50% of the jail population by implementing
a robust array of alternatives to detention, such as day reporting and
electronic monitoring.
Like other jails, Santa Barbara must now house prisoners who are
sentenced to the Jail for years at a time, following the implementation of
AB 109 in 2011.8 The 2015 Grand Jury reported that “[p]rior to AB 109,
the average length of stay in the Jail was 20 days. It has now increased
to over one year due to the incarceration of serious long-term

5

Final Report and Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Jail Overcrowding, page 14,
available from http://www.sbsheriff.org/BRCReport. “Return to Main Document”
6

BSCC Jail Profile Study, Attachment # 10, page 6. “Return to Main Document”

7

BSCC Jail Profile Study, Attachment # 10, page 6. “Return to Main Document”

8

Public Policy Institute of California, “California’s County Jails,” available from
http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1061. “Return to Main Document”

Page 4 of 26
offenders.”9 The increasing length of stay makes adequacy of jail
conditions even more pressing than in years past.
Corizon Health Care has provided physical health care services in
the Jail for many years. Until recently, mental health services were
provided by County Behavioral Health. In 2009, the Sheriff’s Department
terminated the contract with County Behavioral Health and contracted
with Corizon to provide mental health care in the Jail.
FINDINGS RE: ABUSE AND/OR NEGLECT OF
PRISONERS WITH DISABILITIES

Based on our monitoring visit on April 2, 2015, interviews with
prisoners, their families and attorneys and on our review of public
documents and prisoner medical records,10 we found the following
evidence of abuse and neglect in Santa Barbara County Jail.
1. Excessive Use of Isolation and Solitary Confinement

Isolation and solitary confinement in correctional facilities are
generally considered to be situations in which prisoners are held in their
cells, alone or with a cellmate, for 22 to 24 hours per day.11 In most jails,
prisoners are held in isolation because they are classified as maximum
security, are in administrative segregation or protective custody, or
subject to short-term discipline. In contrast, prisoners in general
population in most correctional facilities typically are housed in

9

Grand Jury Report, 2014-2015, footnote 4, page 2. “Return to Main Document”

10

The findings in this report are based in part on a review of the medical records for five prisoners, which
we obtained these reports through signed releases from prisoners whom we interviewed and from their
family members and attorneys; the records were not obtained through use of our access authority under 42
U.S.C. §10805(a)(1) and 29 U.S.C. § 794(f)(3). We have provided a copy of these records to the
Sheriff’s Department along with this report. “Return to Main Document”
11

For support for this accepted definition of isolation, see, e.g., U.S. Department of Justice, Investigation
of State Correctional Institution at Cresson, May 13, 2013, Attachment #7, p. 5, available at
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/cresson_findings_5-31-13.pdf (“terms ‘isolation’ or
‘solitary confinement’ mean the state of being confined to one’s cell for approximately 22 hours per day
or more, alone or with other prisoners, that limits contact with others. … An isolation unit means a unit
where either all or most of those housed in the unit are subjected to isolation.”); Wilkinson v. Austin, 545
U.S. 209, 214, 224 (2005) (describing solitary confinement as limiting human contact for 23 hours per
day); Tillery v. Owens, 907 F.2d 418, 422 (3d Cir. 1990) (21 to 22 hours per day). “Return to Main
Document”

Page 5 of 26
dormitories, or are locked in their cells only during sleeping hours, and
are in dayrooms, activities or recreation areas during waking hours.
Even a short stay in conditions of extreme isolation is likely to
worsen prisoners’ mental health symptoms, causing them “to lapse in
and out of a mindless state” or “semi-fatuous condition” at a heightened
risk for suicide. See Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. ___, No. 13-1428, 2015
WL 2473373, at *20 (U.S. June 18, 2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring).
Consequently, correctional facilities should place prisoners in isolation
only when security conditions permit no alternative.12 Prisoners with
mental health problems are especially harmed by prolonged isolation
(defined as a duration of more than three to four weeks).13 Many state
correctional systems, including those in California, Illinois,
Massachusetts, Ohio and Pennsylvania, have adopted policies to ensure
that prisoners with mental illness are excluded from isolation and solitary
confinement.14
We found widespread overuse of prolonged isolation and
segregation in the Santa Barbara Jail. Many prisoners were locked in
small cells for 22 to 24 hours per day and are not permitted to have
radios or televisions. The primary exception is low to medium security
prisoners, who are housed in dormitories.
Many parts of the Main Jail are old and built with a linear design,
which limits access to dayrooms. However, increased out-of-cell time is
possible even in this environment, especially since the jail census is

12

Metzner J.L., Fellner J., “Solitary Confinement and Mental Illness in U.S. Prisons: A Challenge for
Medical Ethics,” J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 38:104–8, 2010, Attachment #2. “Return to Main
Document”
13

American Psychiatric Association, Position statement on segregation of prisoners with mental illness
(2012), Attachment #4, available from
http://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Learn/Archives/Position-2012-Prisoners-Segregation.pdf.
Accord, Society for Correctional Physicians, “Restricted Housing of Mentally Ill Inmates, Position
Statement,” July 9, 2013, Attachment #5, available from
http://societyofcorrectionalphysicians.org/resources/position-statements/restricted-housing-of-mentallyill-inmates (“prolonged segregation of inmates with serious mental illness, with rare exceptions, violates
basic tenets of mental health treatment.”) “Return to Main Document”
14

Metzner J.L., Dvoskin J.A., “An Overview of Correctional Psychiatry,” Psychiatr Clin North Am
29:761–72 (2006), Attachment #1. See also, U.S. Department of Justice, “Investigation of the
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections’ Use of Solitary Confinement on Prisoners with Serious Mental
Illness and/or Intellectual Disabilities,” February 24, 2014, Attachment #8,
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/pdoc_finding_2-24-14.pdf. “Return to Main Document”

Page 6 of 26
lower than in past years. Nevertheless, custody staff did not describe
any particular efforts or initiatives to increase out-of-cell time.
Extended Placement in Isolation in Safety Cells

We found that prisoners are held in safety cells in the Santa
Barbara Jail for many days at a time, on a repeated basis, with no
access to mental health treatment. Safety cells are small, windowless
rooms, with rubberized walls, a pit toilet in the floor, and no furniture,
bedding or source of water. Prisoners are not permitted normal clothing
and are typically given only a blanket or “suicide smock.” They are not
provided with regular access to showers, telephones, outdoor recreation,
visitation or indeed, any out-of-cell time whatsoever.
California Code of Regulations, title 15, Section 1055, states that
safety cells “shall be used to hold only those inmates who display
behavior which results in the destruction of property or reveals an intent
to cause physical harm to self or others. … In no case shall the safety
cell be used for punishment or as a substitute for treatment.” Section
1055 also requires documented monitoring, twice every 30 minutes.
Typically, in most jails, prisoners remain in safety cells for a few hours at
a time.
Courts have ruled that safety cells may be used as a “temporary
measure” to control violent or suicidal prisoners “until they ‘cooled down’
sufficiently to be released from those cells.” Anderson v. County of Kern,
45 F.3d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1995). In the Anderson case, the federal
court of appeal ruled that because “the inmates were confined to the
safety cell only for short periods of time,” their constitutional rights were
not violated. Id. In the Anderson case, one prisoner was held in the
safety cell for 90 minutes, another was held there for 3 hours and a third
was held overnight. 45 F.3d at 1313. The Anderson court contrasted
this temporary use of safety cells in the Kern County Jail with other
cases in which extended placement in safety cells for 48 hours or more
resulted in significant constitutional violations.
In the Santa Barbara Jail, custody staff were quite clear that
placement in safety cells was not temporary, and stated unequivocally
that prisoners could be in a safety cell “for days.”
Medical records and prisoner interviews confirmed that prisoners
with mental illness and behavioral problems are housed in safety cells

Page 7 of 26
for three days at a time on a repeated basis.15 For example, medical
records from Prisoner C., show that over an 8 week period from
February 7, 2015 to April 6, 2015, he was placed in a safety cell three
times, each time for a duration of three to four days. Prisoners D. and E.
were also subjected to repeated safety cell placement. Placing
prisoners with mental illness in safety cells for days at a time without
mental health treatment constitutes abuse and/or neglect, is inconsistent
with minimum standards of care and violates constitutional guarantees.
Even in the small sample of medical records to which we had
access, we noted that prisoners were kept in safety cells long after their
behavior ceased to pose any risk to themselves or others. Corizon’s
suicide watch forms confirm that on multiple occasions, Prisoner C.
denied any suicidal intent after a few hours in a safety cell, but remained
there for up to three additional days. An even more troubling example is
Prisoner D. On two separate occasions, he was placed in a safety cell
and after several days, was seen by a mental health counselor who
concluded he was stable and could be released. Both times, the mental
health counselor left him in the safety cell to be released “at
classification’s discretion,” or “custody discretion.” This practice subjects
prisoners to needless emotional distress and physical discomfort, and
cannot be justified. As noted above, prisoners in a safety cell have no
bed, toilet or regular clothing, and no source of water in their cell, which
is small, absolutely barren and completely isolated.
The Jail’s monitoring of safety cell placements was also deficient.
To comply with the requirement for documented monitoring twice every
thirty minutes, custody staff clip a sheet to the door of the cell and log
their observations as they occur. The safety cells have a solid door with
a small Plexiglas window that is normally covered, so staff must open
the window to observe the prisoner inside. During our inspection of the
Main Jail, we observed one such “monitoring.” As we passed Safety
Cell #1, we noted that it was occupied. From the log, we saw that a
prisoner had been placed there the night before. Staff observations
were terse, with notes such as “breathing,” and “awake.” As we watched,
a custody officer stepped up to the clip board, made a notation and

15

According to Jail policy and practices, mental health staff evaluate prisoners in safety cells twice each
day. In the records we reviewed, we did not see notes that confirmed that this practice was being carried
out. “Return to Main Document”

Page 8 of 26
stepped away without opening the window to the cell to observe the
prisoner. The supervisor escorting us had to remind the officer to look in
on the prisoner, which would not have occurred had we not been
present.
Corizon mental health staff are only on-site during normal business
hours; if incidents that require placement in a safety cell occur after
hours or on weekends, custody staff stated that they do not contact
Corizon mental health staff before safety call placement unless there is
an emergency. This policy prevents mental health staff from providing
necessary treatment and advice to inmates placed because of
psychiatric reasons. Further, Custody staff stated their policy was that
they waited until Corizon mental health staff assessed prisoners to
determine when they get out of a safety cell placement, which will lead to
extended stays in safety cells for prisoners who are calm and can return
to their regular housing, simply because Corizon is not on site. In
addition, even when Corizon staff does assess, prisoners are held longer
than necessary, as noted above with Prisoner D., who was to be
released at the discretion of classification, not mental health.
In interviews, other prisoners described the absence of any mental
health treatment following their release from a safety cell placement for
suicidality. One prisoner explained that he had been in the Jail for two
months, had been on Effexor and Risperdal in the community and in
prison, and had submitted requests to Corizon for mental health
medications (his most recent request was almost a month earlier) and
had been placed in a safety cell four to five times in the past month.
Despite this history, at the time of our inspection, he told us that he still
had not seen a mental health practitioner nor had he received a
response to his medication request.
It is important to note that even a short stay in a safety cell can be
extremely counter-therapeutic. One expert states unequivocally: “No
one should be housed in segregation while they are acutely psychotic,
suicidal or otherwise in the midst of a psychiatric crisis.”16 Yet this is
precisely what the Santa Barbara Jail does with prisoners who are
suicidal and in crisis. According to another noted expert, “placing
suicidal prisoners in barren observation cells … ‘is counter-therapeutic in

16

Metzner and Dvoskin, footnote 16, page 2. “Return to Main Document”

Page 9 of 26
that no therapeutic relationship is formed and the prisoner learns it’s
better to keep suicidal thoughts and plans to him or herself. In jails and
prisons isolation ‘safety cells’ are used instead of doing what is essential
in the treatment of anyone seriously contemplating suicide: talk to them.
Thorough evaluation, continuity of contact with mental health clinicians,
establishment of a trusting therapeutic relationship — these are the
things that prevent suicides and assure the effectiveness of treatment —
not fifteen minute checks on a prisoner in an observation/safety cell.’”17
Leaving Prisoners on Psychiatric Holds under WIC § 5150 in Safety
Cells without Mental Health Treatment.

One of the worst practices we observed from the medical records
was the Jail’s failure to provide treatment for prisoners who have been
placed on a psychiatric hold under Welf. & Inst. Code § 5150, and
instead keeping them in a safety cell for the entire 72-hour duration of
the hold. Attorneys who represent defendants reported that this
happens repeatedly to their clients.
Under Section 5150, an individual may be detained for
assessment, evaluation, crisis intervention and treatment if they are
found to be a danger to self, danger to others or gravely disabled. In
other jails, prisoners are typically transferred from the jail to an inpatient
psychiatric hospital for treatment when they meet 5150 criteria. In Santa
Barbara, the only LPS designated facility in the county is the countyowned psychiatric health facility, and Jail staff report difficulties locating
an available bed there. However, if no beds are available, the
alternatives are to transfer the prisoner to an LPS designated facility in
another county, such as Vista Del Mar or Hillmont in Ventura County. If
no beds are available there, the Department must provide intensive
mental health treatment in the Jail itself.
When a prisoner is awaiting transfer to an inpatient facility, or when
a bed cannot be located, Corizon does not appear to provide mental
health treatment to prisoners who are placed on a §5150 hold. For
example, Prisoner C. was placed on a § 5150 hold while in a safety cell;
apart from a daily status check, Corizon staff provided no mental health

17

Human Rights Watch, Ill-Equipped: U.S. Prisons and Offenders with Mental Illness (2003), p. 183,
quoting Dr. Terry Kupers, available https://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1003/usa1003.pdf “Return to
Main Document”

Page 10 of 26
treatment. After three days, the 5150 hold expired and he remained in
the safety cell, still without any mental health intervention. This practice
violates state statute and subjects prisoners to abuse and neglect.
Placing Prisoners with Mental Illness in Isolation

Because of the damaging impact of isolation on prisoners with
mental illness, the recommended practice is that these prisoners be
excluded from isolation.18 Santa Barbara does not follow this guideline,
and prisoners with mental illness are routinely placed in prolonged
isolation, even apart from the excessive use of safety cells noted above.
In the Main Jail, prisoners in single cells are effectively held in
isolation if they are designated as maximum classification, administrative
segregation, or protective custody. Conditions in segregation cells are
characterized by inadequate exercise and extreme social isolation.
Prisoners are offered three hours of outdoor recreation as required by
Title 15 of the state regulations, usually as 1.5 hours twice per week, and
a few minutes of shower time every other day. This leaves prisoners
locked in their cells for 24 hours per day for five days per week, and 22.5
hours per day on the days when they have outdoor recreation. This
amounts to solitary confinement for a large portion of the Jail population.
The mental health housing unit, known as 100, consists of cells in
which prisoners are held alone, although they were designed for double
occupancy. Consequently, prisoners in the mental health unit are held in
conditions as isolating as maximum security housing. We interviewed
prisoners with severe mental illness in dorms who said that, as difficult
as their current housing was, the mental health unit was far worse
because of the isolation conditions. Custody staff told us that prisoners
get out-of-cell time for 1.5 hours twice per week in which to use the
outdoor yard and shower, which meets the state regulations but still
constitutes extreme, prolonged isolation.

18

See, Metzner J.L., Dvoskin J.A., “An Overview of Correctional Psychiatry,” Attachment #1. A recent
agreement between the Department of Justice and a county jail in Georgia provides that segregation “shall
be presumed contraindicated” for inmates with serious mental illness. If an inmate has a “serious mental
illness” or other acute mental health contraindications to segregation, that inmate “shall not remain in
segregation absent extraordinary and exceptional circumstances.” MOA Between the U.S. Department of
Justice and Columbus, Georgia Regarding the Muscogee County Jail, January 16, 2015, Attachment #9,
available from http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/muscogee_moa_1-16-15.pdf. “Return to
Main Document”

Page 11 of 26
Accepted treatment standards require mental health staff to take
affirmative steps to ameliorate the harsh impact of isolation and
segregation on prisoners with serious mental illness, assuming that the
physical constraints of the facility and/or the security status of the
prisoner do not allow alternative housing. The minimum standard of care
for a segregated mental health unit is the following: “For prisoners with a
serious mental illness [in segregation], the specialized mental health
program should offer at least 10 to 15 hours per week of out-of-cell
structured therapeutic activities in addition to at least another 10 hours
per week of unstructured exercise or recreation.”19 A recent settlement
agreement between the U.S. Department of Justice and a county jail in
Georgia describes a program consistent with these minimum standards.
There, the jail agreed that prisoners housed in its secure mental health
unit “would be offered a minimum of:
i. At least 10 hours of out-of-cell structured time each week, with
every effort made to provide two scheduled out-of-cell sessions
of structured individual or group therapeutic treatment and
programming Monday through Friday and one session on
Saturdays, with each session lasting approximately one hour,
with appropriate duration to be determined by a qualified mental
health professional and detailed in that inmates individual
treatment plan, and
ii. At least two hours of unstructured out of cell recreation with
other inmates each day, including exercise, dining and other
leisure activities that provide opportunities for socializing, for a
total of at least 14 hours of out of cell unstructured time each
week.”20

19

Metzner and Dvoskin, footnote 19, Attachment #1, page 3. See also, American Psychiatric Association
(“APA”) Position Statement on Segregation of Prisoners with Mental Illness,” Attachment #4 (“If an
inmate with serious mental illness is placed in segregation, out of cell structured therapeutic activities
(i.e., mental health/psychiatric treatment) in appropriate programming space and adequate unstructured
out of cell time should be permitted.”); Society of Correctional Physicians, “Position Statement:
Restricted Housing of Mentally Ill Inmates,” Attachment #5, page 1 (if inmates with serious mental
illness cannot be excluded from prolonged segregation, “the conditions of their confinement should be
modified in a manner that allows for adequate out-of-cell structured therapeutic activities.”). “Return to
Main Document”
20

Muscogee Jail Agreement, footnote 19, Attachment #9, page 13. “Return to Main Document”

Page 12 of 26
The manner in which the mental health unit is operated and the
services provided by Corizon in this unit fail to meet these minimum
standards of care, deny prisoners with mental illness needed treatment,
subject them to abuse and neglect and violate their constitutional rights.
We note that some prisoners with serious mental illness are offered
even less out-of-cell time than that reportedly provided in the mental
health unit and segregation cells. We reviewed records from Prisoner E.,
a mentally ill prisoner who was in the Jail for four months until he was
finally transferred to the County psychiatric health facility. Prisoner E.
was held on a misdemeanor charge and had been declared incompetent
to stand trial based on his mental illness. Custody staff wrote to his
family stating that he was out of his single cell for only two hours per
week, rather than the three hours per week required by Title 15. This is
extreme isolation, and had a damaging impact on this prisoner’s already
fragile mental health.
Corizon does appear to conduct regular rounds of prisoners in
isolation, which is a positive and important practice. However, the
rounds consist of brief cell-front contact, with words exchanged through
the small gap on the side of the solid metal door front. This cell front
contact is no substitute for actual counseling and therapeutic contact,
which Corizon does not provide.
2. Inadequate Mental Health Care

Under the U.S. Constitution, there are “six basic, essentially
common sense, components of a minimally adequate prison mental
health care delivery system.” Coleman v. Brown, 938 F. Supp.2d 955,
970 (E.D. Cal. 2013). The components are: screening, staffing,
recordkeeping, medication, suicide prevention, and “a treatment program
that involves more than segregation and close supervision of mentally ill
inmates.” Id. at 970 n. 24; Balla v. Idaho State Board of Corrections, 595
F. Supp. 1558, 1577 (D. Idaho 1984); Ruiz v. Estelle, 503 F. Supp. 1265,
1339 (S.D.Tex.1980). The Jail must address the negative effects of
housing in harsh segregated environments (Coleman, 938 F. Supp.2d at
979–80), and provide “treat[ment] in an individualized manner” for
mental disorders. Id. at 984. Treatment must have the goal of
“stabilization and symptom management.” Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F.
Supp. 1146, 1222 (N.D. Cal. 1995).

Page 13 of 26
Absence of Group or Individual Out-of-Cell Therapeutic Activities

Outpatient mental health care in the Santa Barbara Jail appears
consists solely of sporadic medication management and brief, cell-front
interviews. Corizon staff do not conduct mental health groups or provide
more extended therapeutic contacts apart from assessments and cellfront checks. For example, one prisoner we interviewed was housed in a
dorm, reported a history of significant mental health treatment and said
that he had been “suicidal” the previous night. He said that he wants
medication but only if he can also speak to a mental health professional
for ongoing therapy, which he had been told was not possible in the Jail.
The absence of any group or individual therapy, or other structured
out-of-cell therapeutic activities violates minimum standards of care for
prisoners with serious mental illness. For example, the National
Commission on Correctional Health Care has adopted a standard that
“[r]egardless of facility size or type, basic on-site outpatient [mental
health] services include, at a minimum, individual counseling, group
counseling and psychosocial/psychoeducational programs.” Standards
for Health Services in Jails (2014), Standard J-G-04, Attachment #3.
As discussed in the previous section, the Jail has a designated
mental health unit for prisoners with serious mental illness. Custody
keeps these prisoners in their cells for between 23 and 24 hours per day.
As we noted above, Corizon staff do not provide the recommended outof-cell structured therapeutic activities necessary to compensate for the
impact of these isolation conditions on prisoners with mental illness.
We observed some positive practices. As noted above, Corizon
mental health staff conduct regular isolation rounds. The Jail will provide
7 days of follow-up medications at release, and sometimes as much as
30 days. The Sheriff’s Department has a full time discharge planner.
Inadequate Screening, Poor Medication Continuity

Prisoners we interviewed had many complaints about their inability
to continue the medications they had been on in the community. More
than a dozen people reported that they had gone for weeks and months
without the mental health medications they had been taking in the
community, despite disclosing this need during their initial screening and
in later requests. By report, the lack of medication continuity extended to
medications for physical health care conditions, and the medical records
we reviewed confirmed these reports.

Page 14 of 26
For example, Prisoner A. was taking medication for PTSD, anxiety
and seizures before he was arrested. After booking, he was denied
access to his anti-seizure medication, Dilantin. After four days, he had a
grand mal seizure. The next day, staff started him back on Dilantin but
did not address his need for medication for anxiety and PTSD. He had
to wait more than two months after booking before he was seen by a
Corizon psychiatrist who finally prescribed medication for his PTSD.
Some of the problems with medication continuity can be attributed
to poor initial screening. For example, when Prisoner B. was booked
into the Jail, he brought a bag with all his VA-issued medications,
including medication for anxiety and PTSD. He was screened a week
after booking by a therapist who listed all the medications prescribed by
his VA doctors in the community, but failed to order any bridge
medications for his physical or mental health needs or to refer him to a
psychiatrist for further evaluation. He had to wait an additional two
months before he was seen by a Corizon psychiatrist, who still did not
prescribe the only medication that the VA had found effective in treating
his PTSD.
Poor screening may also explain why Corizon reports that so few
prisoners have serious mental illness in the Santa Barbara Jail. Corizon
mental health staff told us that 13-16% of the jail population is identified
with mental illness, and that 90 people are on psychotropic medications,
which is roughly 11% of the prisoner population. Eight years earlier, the
Blue Ribbon Commission had reported a mental illness rate of 29%,
noting that this “understates the true picture, since it only counts those
who agree to treatment and take jail-issued medication.”21 The difference
between the reported rates of mental illness in 2007 and 2015 could be
attributable to a change in mental health providers in the jail. When the
Blue Ribbon Commission issued its report, mental health services were
provided by County Behavioral Health. Corizon Health Care, which is a
for-profit provider, took over the contract to provide mental health
services in the Jail in 2009. Corizon’s report that 11% of prisoners are on
mental health medication is half the rate reported by the Blue Ribbon
Commission, and well below the expected prevalence rate based on

21

Blue Ribbon Commission Report, footnote 7, page 18. “Return to Main Document”

Page 15 of 26
reports of national experts.22 We are concerned that Corizon could be
overlooking or under-treating prisoners with mental illness through
inadequate screening or other practices discussed in this report.
Untimely Response to Requests for Mental Health Medication and
Services

In brief interviews in one dormitory, five prisoners complained that
they had submitted multiple requests over several months to be seen by
mental health staff, with no response. Other prisoners whom we
interviewed at greater length and whose records we obtained had the
same complaint. Significantly, none of the records we reviewed included
copies of prisoners’ requests for medical and mental health care, so we
could not verify their reports, but the consistency of the complaints
suggests a problem.
We asked Corizon mental health staff about delays in responding
to requests. Their reply was that they closely monitor requests, that
urgent requests are answered immediately and that it may be two to
three weeks to get a response to non-urgent requests. However, we are
concerned that Corizon’s reporting system may not be capturing all the
sick call slips and psych line requests submitted by prisoners, especially
because these requests are apparently not logged in the medical
records. We plan to conduct further investigation to determine the extent
of delays in responding to requests for mental health care.
We observed problems with medication management. From the
records, we noted instances in which prisoners were placed on or
discontinued from significant psychotropic medications with little
monitoring. For example, Prisoner C. had been at a state hospital for six
months, where he was restored to competence on a regime that
included seven psychotropic medications, including several long-acting
injectable anti-psychotic medications. A month after his return, the Jail
psychiatrist abruptly discontinued all but two of these seven medications
without tapering or transition; two days later, Prisoner C. attempted
suicide. In another example, Prisoner D. was diagnosed with psychosis,
but was prescribed Wellbutrin, an anti-depressant that can cause

22

Metzner, “Overview of Correction Psychiatry,” Attachment #1 (prevalence rate of 20% for serious
mental illness); Metzner and Fellner, Attachment # 2 (same, plus an additional 15 to 20% require mental
health intervention, including medication). “Return to Main Document”

Page 16 of 26
agitation. Two months later, after a cell extraction and assault on a
deputy, a different Corizon psychiatrist terminated the order for
Wellbutrin with a note that “this medication can worsen these [assaultive]
behaviors.”
We noted a high number of suicide attempts in the medical records
we reviewed. Custody staff informed us that the Jail had only one
completed suicide in the last four years, but there have been 35 to 40
attempts. Corizon’s suicide prevention program appears to consist
primarily of extended safety cell placement, which, as noted above, is
not a substitute for mental health treatment and can also deter prisoners
from reporting suicidal ideation.
We also failed to find any evidence in the medical records of a
functioning behavior management program. Corizon’s form for
monitoring prisoners on suicide watch is comprehensive and includes
box that can be checked if a behavior management plan is being
developed. However, this box was blank in every form we examined,
and no prisoner records included a behavior management plan.
Apparently Corizon staff do not develop written behavior management
plans even for individuals such as Prisoner C., who made a suicide
attempt and reported auditory hallucinations commanding him to commit
suicide, or for Prisoner E., who was described as the “most difficult”
prisoner in the Jail and had also attempted suicide by hanging. A
template for a behavior management plans used in the San Francisco
Jail are included as Attachment #12 to this report.
3. Denial of Rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) provides that
“no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability,
be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the
services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to
discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Jails and prisons
are subject to the prohibitions and protections in Title II. Pierce v. County
of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1214 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Pa. Dep’t of Corr.
v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 209-10 (1998). In correctional settings, the
ADA requires that prisoners with disabilities be ensured equal access to
jail programs, services and activities, including the ability to safely use
personal hygiene services such as toilets and showers, to engage in
activities such as ambulation and exercise, and participate in programs
such as visitation, educational classes, religious services, and inmate
worker programs on the same basis as non-disabled prisoners.

Page 17 of 26
Accessible Cells and Housing.

In 2010, the Department of Justice issued a new regulation
specifically addressing the “nondiscrimination and program access
obligations” of a correctional facility. 28 C.F.R. § 35.152, effective March
15, 2011.23 This regulation provides in part that “[p]ublic entities shall
implement reasonable policies, including physical modifications to
additional cells in accordance with the 2010 Standards, so as to ensure
that each inmate with a disability is housed in a cell with the accessible
elements necessary to afford the inmate access to safe, appropriate
housing.” 42 C.F.R. § 35.152(b)(3). Justice Department commentary on
this regulation makes clear that it concerns the program access
obligations of a correctional facility, which do not depend on the date of
construction, as opposed to requirements for architectural accessibility,
which are tied to the date of construction or modification.24
The Department houses most prisoners with disabilities in the Main
Jail in South Dorm 25. This dorm contains double bunks with lower and
upper levels. The Jail assigns prisoners to a lower bunk in this dorm if
they have mobility impairments or another condition such as epilepsy.
There is apparently no formal policy to monitor and enforce lower bunk
orders. We observed a number of people sleeping on the floor in this
dorm, with deputies looking on. Prisoners we interviewed stated that
others had already taken all the lower bunks, and that they had no
choice but to sleep on the floor. For example, Prisoner A. was in South
Dorm 25 because he has epilepsy. He reported that he slept on the floor
because he could not get a lower bunk and was afraid that he would be
injured if he fell off an upper bunk during a seizure. In fact, because the
Jail failed to provide him with his epilepsy medication, he had a grand
mal seizure in his first few days in the Jail. Prisoner A. stated that he
had made multiple requests for a “boat,” which is a temporary plastic
sleep surface that rests directly on the floor and on which prisoners can
place a mattress. Floor sleeping was so common in this dorm that
Prisoner A stated that those who get “boats” were the “lucky ones.”

23

U.S. Department of Justice, Notice re: Final Regulations implementing Title II of the ADA, 75 Fed.
Reg. 56164, 56218-56223 (2010), Attachment #6, also available at
http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleII_2010/titleII_2010_regulations.htm#a2010guidance. “Return to Main
Document”
24

DOJ Regulations, 75 Fed. Reg. at 56218-56223, Attachment #6. “Return to Main Document”

Page 18 of 26
During our inspection, custody staff ignored the floor sleepers and
made no effort to enforce lower bunk orders, although it was obvious
that these were being disregarded, or that the number of lower bunks
was insufficient to meet the need. This is a blatant denial of one of the
most basic accommodations for prisoners with – an accessible bed. The
Jail apparently has no policy or practice to ensure that lower bunk orders
are issued, honored and enforced.
Surprising, although prisoners with mobility impairments are
concentrated in the South Dorm, the toilet and shower areas do not meet
architectural standards for wheelchair use, and lack properly placed grab
bars, shower heads, etc.25 Medical records for Prisoner A, for example,
note that he fell in the shower. During our inspection, we asked custody
staff whether there was housing that complied with the ADA. Custody
staff showed us a cell in a different area of the Jail that was supposedly
ADA compliant. However, the toilet would be completely inaccessible to
anyone in a wheelchair – the seat was far too low and there were no
grab bars installed.
We also note that the Jail has carried out alterations to its facilities,
such as the renovation of the honor farm in 2006 to add 161 medium
security beds and the conversion of basement conference rooms to
dormitories in 2013. The ADA applies to alterations to existing buildings
after January 26, 1992, the effective date of the ADA. 28 C.F.R. §
35.151 (b). Consequently, these portions of the Jail must conform to the
ADA’s architectural access standards, which are more comprehensive
than the program access requirements discussed above. See, Uniform
Federal Accessibility Standards on www.ada.gov.
Denial of Accommodations

Prisoners complained to us about the Jail’s failure to provide
accommodations for their disabilities, in addition to the problem noted
above regarding access to lower bunks. One prisoner with low vision

25

We are able to provide you with copies of DOJ publications on accessibility standards for correctional
facilities, which can also be obtained online: ADA/Section 504 Design Guide: Accessible Cells in
Correctional Facilities, available from http://www.ada.gov/accessiblecells.htm and the ADA standards for
Accessible Design that specify the requirements for an accessible shower, §§ 603.1 to 610.4; acceptable
reach ranges for fixtures, § 308, and accessible faucet and handle types, § 309.4.
http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010ADAStandards/2010ADAstandards.htm#sec805. “Return to Main
Document”

Page 19 of 26
reported that the Jail would not help him with reading and writing.
Prisoner B., who uses a wheelchair, reported multiple falls because of
untrained custody staff and accessibility barriers. When booked, the Jail
took away his personal wheelchair and gave him another that had faulty
brakes and was too large to pass through doorways. According to his
records, he was injured in a fall off the transport bus in October 2014;
was injured again in March 2015 when he attempted to transfer from his
wheelchair to his bunk, and again in April 2015 when he fell in the
shower, which did not have any grab bars. Prisoner B. reported that he
has filed multiple grievances, to no effect.
Discrimination against Prisoners with Serious Mental Illness

The ADA regulations require public entities such as the Sheriff’s
Department to “administer programs, services and activities in the most
integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with
disabilities.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(d); 28 C.F.R. § 152(b)(2) (requiring
correctional facilities to house prisoners with disabilities in the most
integrated setting appropriate). In a recent investigation, the Department
of Justice found that a Pennsylvania prison violated these provisions by
automatically placing prisoners with mental illness in segregation and
isolation conditions.26 The prison was required to “ensure that qualified
prisoners with serious mental illness … have as equal an opportunity as
other prisoners to participate in and benefit from its housing and
classification services, programs and activities, and the benefits that flow
from them, such as out-of-cell time, interaction with other prisoners and
movement outside of confined environments.”27
The Department discriminates against prisoners with serious
mental illness by housing them in isolation conditions in the mental
health unit, regardless of their classification level, and by failing to
provide them with support and accommodations to enable them to
function in an integrated setting.

26

US DOJ, Cresson Investigation, Attachment #7, page 32. See also, US DOJ Investigation of
Pennsylvania DOC, Attachment #8, pages 17-22. “Return to Main Document”
27

US DOJ, Cresson Investigation, Attachment #7, page 34. “Return to Main Document”

Page 20 of 26
ADA Coordinator

The ADA regulations require the Jail to have an ADA coordinator.
42 C.F.R. § 35.106. The coordinator’s role is “to ensure that individuals
dealing with large agencies [such as the Sheriff’s Department] are able
to easily find a responsible person who is familiar with the requirements
of the [ADA and the DOJ regulations] and can communicate those
requirements to other individuals in the agency who may be unaware of
their responsibilities.” Appendix A to Part 35, 28 C.F.R. at page 568.
The Department does not appear to have an ADA coordinator for
the Jail. When questioned, staff were unaware of such a position and
could not identify any particular individual responsible for arranging
accommodations. We conclude that the Jail is violating this requirement.
Notice of Rights and Complaint Procedure

The Jail also has an obligation to provide notice to prisoners of
their rights under the ADA (28 C.F.R. § 35.106), and must have an ADA
complaint procedure by which prisoners with disabilities may contest any
disability-based discrimination or violation of the ADA. 28 C.F.R. §
35.107(b). The complaint procedure must provide for “prompt and
equitable resolution of complaints alleging any action that would be
prohibited by [the ADA regulations.].” § 35.107(b) (emphasis added).
The Jail’s designated ADA coordinator is responsible for investigating
complaints submitted through this process. § 35.107(a).
In interviews, prisoners with disabilities had complaints about their
inability to obtain accommodations but were unfamiliar with any
procedure for requesting accommodations for their disabilities, or
appealing the denial of accommodations. This violates the notice
requirement in 28 C.F.R. § 35.106. The Jail does not have an ADA
complaint system, and the existing grievance system cannot substitute
because it does not meet the ADA requirements listed above.
We did not have an opportunity to review the Jail’s informing
materials or substantive policies regarding prisoners with disabilities.
However, the ADA regulations require the Sheriff’s Department to
conduct a self-evaluation of its services, policies and practices to
determine whether they meet the requirements of the ADA. 28 C.F.R. §
35.105(a). Since the Jail has more than 50 employees, it was also
required to complete a Transition Plan by July 1993, detailing the steps
and timeline it will take to achieve compliance with the ADA. Although
the deadline to complete a self-evaluation and transition plan is long

Page 21 of 26
past, this is a continuing obligation and public entities that missed this
deadline are not exempt from compliance. Reviewing policies and
procedures is one part of the self-evaluation required by §35.105(a).
4. Other Areas of Concern, Including Medical and Dental Care

a. Floor sleeping and Overcrowding
The Jail has had a problem with floor sleepers due to
overcrowding. Custody staff informed us that they had no floor sleepers
at the time of our inspections, and had not had floor sleepers for the past
four months. However, we observed several prisoners who were
sleeping on mattresses on the floor especially in the medical unit (South)
and among the inmates in protective custody. Custody staff stated they
had the most problems with overcrowding with this classification group.
Other problems were excessive crowding in the dormitories and
multi-man cells, which exceed rated capacity according to the BSCC.
Attachment #11, pages 3-4.
Prisoner B., who has a collapsed lung and asthma, complained
about the mold and dust in the Jail, which aggravated his asthma
breathing problems. We observed that the air quality and ventilation in
the converted basement dormitories was especially poor and several
prisoners housed there complained about breathing problems.
b. Jail Design and Prisoner Safety
We observed one housing area with 14 inmates in multi-man cells
with bars on the front; these cells open onto a small day room area and
bathroom. The central control booth for these cells is down a hallway,
so deputies have no direct line of sight into the housing area. There are
cameras and a call button in the hallway, but prisoners cannot access
these. We were told that deputies walk the hallways, but in between
these patrols, prisoners have no means to report man down, and
deputies cannot observe prisoners. Prisoners are at risk of attack, injury
or rape from others in this setting, which is contrary to the requirements
of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). The converted basement
dorms also raise PREA concerns, since they are large and essentially
unmonitored, with no line of sight from custody.
c. Medical Care for Chronic Conditions and Disabilities
In interviews, prisoners complained about poor care for asthma,
diabetes and other chronic conditions.

Page 22 of 26
INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Isolation (defined as being locked down in a cell for at least 22
hours per day).

a. Increase out-of-cell time and ameliorate isolation conditions
in administrative segregation, protective custody, maximum
security and mental health housing.
b. Ensure that prisoners in single cells in the Main Jail are
provided with a minimum of 4 hours per day of out-of-cell
time.
c. Develop procedures to exclude prisoners with serious mental
illness from isolation and segregation absent extraordinary or
exceptional circumstances.
d. Develop new protocols for the outpatient mental health
housing unit, so that prisoners are offered structured and
unstructured out-of-cell time consistent with minimum
standards outlined in this report.
e. Ensure that Custody and Corizon mental health staff develop
and implement behavior management plans for inmates with
serious mental illness who engage in dangerous or disruptive
behaviors with the goal of preventing their placements, or
shortening the amount of time spent, in isolation conditions.
2. Safety Cells

a. Inmates placed in safety cells as a result of behaviors related
to mental health symptoms should not be housed there for
longer than 12 hours at a time. If the facility administrator, in
cooperation with licensed mental health staff, determines that
there is no less restrictive housing appropriate after 12 hours,
the inmate should be taken to a facility for 72-hour treatment
and evaluation pursuant to Section 5150 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code and Section 4011.6 of the Penal Code.
b. Inmates who are released from mental health related safety
cell placements, or who return from treatment and evaluation
pursuant to Section 5150 of the Welfare and Institutions Code
and Section 4011.6 of the Penal Code, should be evaluated
by a mental health clinician in a confidential, out-of-cell

Page 23 of 26
setting, the next working day and then again within three to
seven days depending on their clinical status.
3. Mental Health Treatment

a. Establish a screening protocol at booking that (i) identifies all
prisoners who are on mental health medication or otherwise
in need of mental health treatment, and (ii) ensures that these
prisoners are assessed and either provided with bridge
medications, or if a determination is made not to provide
requested medications, documenting the basis for the denial
of medication and informing the prisoner in writing of how to
file a grievance regarding this denial.
b. Respond to prisoner requests in a timely manner. Qualified
mental health staff should triage health needs request forms
that seek mental health treatment the same day they are
collected by the health care staff. The forms should be datestamped at the time they are triaged, and noted in the
prisoner’s medical record. When qualified mental health staff
determines clinician follow-up is necessary for diagnosis and
treatment of an inmate's condition, the inmate should be
referred to a clinician for a face-to-face evaluation that takes
place immediately for emergent concerns, within 24 hours for
urgent concerns, and within 14 calendar days for nonemergent or non-urgent concerns. Corizon should and report
on monitor times to respond to requests
c. For prisoners housed in the mental health housing unit,
provide individual and/or group treatment, structured
recreation, and rehabilitation services (e.g., psychoeducation, supervised Activities of Daily Living and cell
cleaning). They should receive ten to fifteen hours of out-ofcell-unstructured time each week (solo progressing to group)
and ten to fifteen hours of out-of-cell structured activities with
staff.
4. ADA

a. Modify existing cells to offer wheelchair-accessible cells in
different classification and housing areas, including medium

Page 24 of 26

b.

c.

d.

e.

and minimum security dormitory housing. This requirement
applies to all areas in the Main Jail as needed to achieve
program access, and to the basement dormitories in the Main
Jail and the Medium Security facility adjacent to the Main Jail.
Develop policies and procedures to assign and enforce
orders for lower bunks and other disability-related
accommodations, and monitor compliance with these orders
on a regular basis.
Ensure that prisoners with physical, sensory and mental
health disabilities have access to the full range of Jail
programs and activities and are not categorically assigned to
more restricted housing than other prisoners.
Appoint an ADA coordinator, establish an effective ADA
complaint system, conduct a self-evaluation and develop a
Transition Plan to achieve ADA compliance.
Develop informational materials for prisoners with disabilities
about how to request accommodations and file ADA
grievances and complaints.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Metzner J.L., Dvoskin J.A., “An Overview of Correctional
Psychiatry,” Psychiatr Clin North Am 29:761–72 (2006).
2. Metzner J.L., Fellner J., “Solitary Confinement and Mental Illness in
U.S. Prisons: A Challenge for Medical Ethics,” J Am Acad
Psychiatry Law 38:104–8, 2010.
3. National Commission on Correctional Health Care, Standards for
Health Services in Jails (2014), Standards J-E-09 and J-G-04.
4. American Psychiatric Association, Position statement on
segregation of prisoners with mental illness (2012),
http://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Learn/Archives/Position2012-Prisoners-Segregation.pdf
5. Society for Correctional Physicians, “Restricted Housing of
Mentally Ill Inmates, Position Statement,” July 9, 2013, available
from http://societyofcorrectionalphysicians.org/resources/positionstatements/restricted-housing-of-mentally-ill-inmates.
6. U.S. Department of Justice, Notice re: Final Regulations
implementing Title II of the ADA, 75 Fed. Reg. 56164, 5621856223 (2010), also available from
http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleII_2010/titleII_2010_regulations.h
tm#a2010guidance.
7. U.S. Department of Justice, Investigation of State Correctional
Institution at Cresson, May 13, 2013 at 5, available at
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/cresson_findings_531-13.pdf
8. U.S. Department of Justice, “Investigation of the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections’ Use of Solitary Confinement on
Prisoners with Serious Mental Illness and/or Intellectual
Disabilities,” February 24, 2014,
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/pdoc_finding_2-2414.pdf
9. Memorandum of Agreement Between the United States
Department of Justice and the Consolidated Government of
Columbus, Georgia Regarding the Muscogee County Jail, January
16, 2015, available from
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/muscogee_moa_116-15.pdf

Page 26 of 26
10.
California Board of State and Community Corrections
(“BSCC”) Jail Profile Study, First Quarter of 2015, available from
http://www.bscc.ca.gov/downloads/2015_1st_Qtr_JPS_Full_Report
.pdf.
11.
BSCC Biennial Inspection report of the Santa Barbara Jail,
January 8, 2015.
12.
Jail Psychiatric Services, San Francisco Jail, Template for
Behavior Management Plan.
(Attachments are available upon request, please contact: Richard Diaz,
richard.diaz@disabilityrightsca.org or call 213-213-8000)
Read Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office response to DRC final
report on inspection of Santa Barbara County Jail
Disability Rights California is funded by a variety of sources, for a
complete list of funders, go to http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/
Documents/ListofGrantsAndContracts.html.